A Bad Law
I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the rights of the people by the gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. -James Madison
So it is with the current Illinois legislature. As I write, there is on the Governor's desk a stealth bill to do just that. It would seem to me that any radical change in how the U.S. Constitution is manifest, should be by the amendment process outlined in the Constitution. That should certainly be the case if a law usurps enumerated Constitutional powers of Congress. Such is the case with HB 1685. The original short description of the bill 'ELEC CD-JUNIOR JUDGES', a bill to essentially allow high school students with an adequate grade point to serve as election judges, provided they met certain other criteria. That sounds good to me. The election boards have difficulty in filling all of the judge spots and it introduces young people to the election process. However, the bill was stripped of all of the provisions in the bill and amended to a bill that 'Creates the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote Act.' People may not like the Electoral College provision in the Constitution, but it is the law of the land. If we as a people want to change it, there should be open public discussion of the pros and cons of the issue and then it should be amended as provided for in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. To do so behind the scenes in the formerly smoke filled rooms of the Illinois Legislature is flat out wrong!
As Abraham Lincoln put it: "I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so would be to discard all the lights of current experience-- to reject all progress, all improvement. What I do say, is, that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so on evidence so conclusive and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand." That is not happening in Springfield.
To mention a few of the problems:
So it is with the current Illinois legislature. As I write, there is on the Governor's desk a stealth bill to do just that. It would seem to me that any radical change in how the U.S. Constitution is manifest, should be by the amendment process outlined in the Constitution. That should certainly be the case if a law usurps enumerated Constitutional powers of Congress. Such is the case with HB 1685. The original short description of the bill 'ELEC CD-JUNIOR JUDGES', a bill to essentially allow high school students with an adequate grade point to serve as election judges, provided they met certain other criteria. That sounds good to me. The election boards have difficulty in filling all of the judge spots and it introduces young people to the election process. However, the bill was stripped of all of the provisions in the bill and amended to a bill that 'Creates the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote Act.' People may not like the Electoral College provision in the Constitution, but it is the law of the land. If we as a people want to change it, there should be open public discussion of the pros and cons of the issue and then it should be amended as provided for in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. To do so behind the scenes in the formerly smoke filled rooms of the Illinois Legislature is flat out wrong!
As Abraham Lincoln put it: "I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so would be to discard all the lights of current experience-- to reject all progress, all improvement. What I do say, is, that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so on evidence so conclusive and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand." That is not happening in Springfield.
To mention a few of the problems:
- It changes the commonly understood function of U.S. Constitution without going through the prescribed methods.
- It amends the Constitution by fiat of as few as 11 states; a method contrary to the expressed and commonly understood 2/3 super majority of states to call for a change in the Constitution. (Though this Right has not been undertaken by any group of States since the Constitution was enacted.)
- It usurps the enumerated powers of the U.S. Congress' role in the election of the President of the United States.
- It would cause the Illinois electors to vote for the top vote getter even if that candidate espoused positions that would be detrimental to Illinois.
- It causes Illinois electors to to vote for the person that received the most votes nationally even if every Citizen in Illinois voted for someone else!
- It could very well send every election into the Courts, because every vote included or not included could change the election.
- In the event of 3 or 4 strong candidates, the President could be elected with as few as 25% of the vote.
I could go on, but then I might never post this blog. It is a shame that the Press is not covering this issue, but for a dismissive comment by Eric Zorn.
Labels: national popular vote, political
posted by Carl at 8:43 AM
5 Comments:
Carl,
We NEED an Article V convention for a number of reasons already, add this to the list.
-MT
P.S. I'm not surprised that a Jacobin like Eric Zorn might like the idea.
Hello Mr. Schultz. Thanks for bringing this to our attention over at the AFB. I was not aware of the Maryland law, nor of the actions of your state legislature on this issue (though I'm certainly not surprised in either case). But I have been aware of this trend in thinking for quite some time now. Even in my state this movement has gained some traction over the years. Just another step in the ongoing, all engrossing process of completely and utterly liberalizing America, and it must be stopped.
I'll check out your links and see if I can't put together a follow-up entry on this later either at the AFB or over at Webster's.
Thanks again. And nice blog.
-Terry
Interesting that you start with a James Madison quote, Carl, as Madison supported a national popular vote for president -- he just knew the politics of winning it at the convention were too complicated, given widely different suffrage rights in different states and the extra power slave states secured through an Electoral College-type system.
The "right way" to establish a national popular vote is not through a constitutional amendment; it's simply another way. The current "unit rule" system adopted by most states today is no more constitutional than the National Popular Vote, and even leading critics like the American Enterprise Institute's John Fortier acknowledge that the National Popular Vote plan is quite within states' powers. Your argument is analogous to arguing that it's now unconstitutional to change the number of members of the U.S. House because it's been a century that they've been at 435. Institutional inertia is not a substitute for constitutional authority.
Certainly I can imagine you opposing states' efforts to secure effective direct election of Senators before we amended the Constitution to require it. But several states made that move, and they were within their rights. The Illinois legislature is standing on solid ground constitutionally and, just as importantly, standing with the people of Illinois who strongly support a national popular vote over the current system that leads Illinois to be completely ignored in presidential campaigns.
Mr. Nicholson, thank you for your comments. I will respectfully disagree with you on several points. First, the current system is certainly more constitutional, as it is affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, whereas the current National Popular Vote plan (NPV) is constitutional in the same way that an accountant might claim that everything is a deduction. (Until you are audited by the I.R.S.) With all due respect to you and to Dr. Fortier, the Supreme Court is the only body with the authority to declare it 'Constitutional'. Further, plain to see on its face, the current NPV violates Article I, section 10- Powers prohibited of States ' No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,...'
Your position that 11 States can do by fiat of their legislature, what 33 States cannot do in the written Constitution strains credulity. By the way, you are factually wrong about it being a century that the U.S. House has been at 435. The House did not reach 435 until 1912, and then rose to 437 in when Alaska and Hawaii joined the Union. It was subsequently reset to 435.
If the people of Illinois are so much behind the NPV, why did the legislature find it necessary to hide it in an election code bill for using high school students as election judges? If NPV is right and good, then why doesn't Illinois embrace it regardless of what other States might do? Regarding the People of Illinois' opinion of the NPV, by your logic, we should all accept that Barack Obama won the 2008 New Hampshire Primary by 13 percentage points.
The better case could be made that the vast majority of Illinois citizens have no idea of what NPV is. On how it relinquishes the sovereignty of the State of Illinois. How it allows other States to vote Illinois' electoral votes to determine the Presidency, even if every single person in Illinois voted against that candidate. How any plurality, no matter how meager, will determine the new President. How if there are problems with the election in other States, Illinois has no way to compel a recount. On how it encourages fraud and voter tampering. I could go on, but I will just repeat that this is 'A Bad Law'!
Post a Comment
<< Home